gsc_declining_pages

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states the action without disclosing return format, date range handling, sorting, or limits. Having no behavioral detail for a tool that could have multiple interpretations of 'losing search performance' is a gap.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, concise sentence with the verb and object front-loaded. No wasted words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Although the tool has only one parameter, the description lacks essential context: what the output looks like, how 'declining' is defined, what time horizon is considered, and whether results are sorted. With no output schema to compensate, this is incomplete for an agent to anticipate behavior.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with site_id described as 'Site ID'. The description adds no parameter-specific context, but the schema already covers the only parameter, reaching the baseline of 3.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb 'Get' and defines the resource as 'pages losing search performance over time,' clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like gsc_declining_queries (which focuses on queries) and gsc_growing_pages (the opposite trend).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The purpose implies usage for declining page performance, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, or any exclusions. It is left to the agent to infer from the sibling tool names.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.